46
41.
263
that its provisions contravene at most unfavorably with the strict enactments introduced by myself as to responsibility for the state of the site.
Vide Ordinance No 9 of 1867.
limits wherein they are held responsible
I would also point out that the punishment by imprisonment, instead of merely a pecuniary penalty in the first instance, so available under the Ordinance now in force for offences against Regulations promulgated for either the suppression or control of Gambling
50. I also cannot admit Mr Anstey's assertion when, in alluding to enforcing the Chinese laws of Collective and mutual responsibility by means of the Tithing (Hea or Kap) and the hundred (Paau)
17-18-19 - Section 19-20
he describes them as institutions which had been expressly recognized by the Hongkong Legislative in Ordinances passed in 1844 and 1857.
51. The Hongkong Legislative had recognized no such thing, for the only Ordinance of the kind passed in 1844, whereby the Governor was authorized to appoint certain Chinese peace officers when recommended to him by the various towns, villages, and hamlets of the colony, and if the institution of the Hundred or Paau be of such importance as Mr Anstey represented it on the 4th of last February it is most remarkable that he did not include it in his model Ordinance of 1857. That Ordinance does